Challenges - should winning or losing matter?

[Evil Yoda]

When you lose a challenge, you're supposed to lose all future challenges that game. This works like the NFL; the purpose is to discourage managers from challenging *everything*. Kevin Cash lost a challenge earlier this game, and yet, here he is asking for a "crew chief review" of a home run.

MLB should say that managers can challenge as many plays as they care to, win or lose. Or it should say that if you lose your challenge, and you come out of the dugout to ask for a challenge later in the game (even to suggest a "crew chief" challenge), it's an automatic ejection.

[Evil Yoda]

We see again that losing challenges does not matter. Gibbons came out and asked for a "crew chief challenge" on whether Manny got back to first, after having earlier lost the team's challenge on a pickoff attempt.

Either enforce the rule of one challenge, or don't bother with it, and let managers bog the game down, use challenges to freeze opposing pitches, etc. as they like. Pick one, MLB.

Maybe if a manager comes out of the dugout or says anything to the umpires when he has no challenges left, then the umpires can't even do for a crew chief challenge. Either that, or make it an automatic ejection of the manager. (But, then, they let players and managers argue balls and strikes all the time without getting run, too).